And colloquially, to say that something exists only as a concept in your mind is simply a different way of saying that something doesn't exist (consider: a conspiracy theory, an imaginary friend, etc) — busycuttingcrap

Numbers?

Yep: I'm not sure if this was intended as a counter-example, but I actually think that it is a good example: for one thing, you could come up with a worse summary of the realist/anti-realist debate RE abstract objects than the dispute between those who think that e.g. numbers exist "only in the mind" and those who do not.

Yep: I'm not sure if this was intended as a counter-example, but I actually think that it is a good example: for one thing, you could come up with a worse summary of the realist/anti-realist debate RE abstract objects than the dispute between those who think that e.g. numbers exist "only in the mind" and those who do not. — busycuttingcrap

I don't follow how you can say:

X exists in the mind
∴ X doesn't exist

How is it therefore, that we make use of something that doesn't exist (numbers)?

Also, conspiracy theories do exist. That's why we can talk about them.

I don't follow how you can say:

X exists in the mind
∴ X doesn't exist — Heracloitus

As I've remarked a number of times, I don't like talking about things "existing as concepts in the mind" (or similar expressions). So I'd rather not use such language at all.

But if I'm humoring people who do use such language, I would point out that Santa Claus is a plump old man living at the North Pole, not a plump old man living "in the mind"- if there is no such person, Santa Claus does not exist. We might say that he "exists only in the mind"- as in, "its all in your head"- as another way that we can and very often say that something doesn't exist. As when someone believes a conspiracy theory, when the conspiracy they believe in isn't real or isn't happening- the conspiracy doesn't exist, it exists "only in the mind", it is "all in your head".

I mean, if your position is that Santa Claus or Pegasus exist, when not existing is what distinguishes fictional characters as such, that's... not a great result.

No, I don't see any contradiction in saying that there does not exist a plump old man living at the North Pole delivering presents to children on Christmas, but that there does exist a body of literary/oral traditions involving such a character..............And colloquially, to say that something exists only as a concept in your mind is simply a different way of saying that something doesn't exist (consider: a conspiracy theory, an imaginary friend, etc) — busycuttingcrap

Perhaps the problem is that one moment you use "exist" in a formal sense and then the next moment in a colloquial sense without making it clear, because otherwise, it seems that you are saying that something that exists doesn't exist.

What does "'exist' in a formal sense" even mean here? Are you referring to existential quantification in formal logic? Or do you mean "exists" as a technical term in ontology (as if there were only one sense of the term as used by philosophers over the centuries)?

Rather, I think the problem is that you're conflating Santa Claus with "concept-of-Santa-Claus". Leaving aside the (not inconsiderable) problems with talking about the existence of concepts in minds, Santa Claus and the concept-of-Santa-Claus are not the same thing. If if there is no jolly old man living at the North Pole making yearly deliveries to children on xmas, then Santa Claus does not exist: "Santa Claus exists" is true if there is such a jolly old man living at the NP, and false if there isn't. And there isn't. So even on your preferred terminology, only "the concept-of-Santa-Claus exists" is true: "Santa Claus exists" is still false... because Santa Claus is fictional, and not-existing is what makes someone/something fictional.

Another sign what you're defending is on the wrong track: if "Santa Claus exists" is true in virtue of the existence of the concept of Santa Claus, then any question of the form "does X exist" must always be answered in the affirmative: in order to ask whether some X exists, we must first have a concept of X. And if the existence of the concept of X entails the existence of X (as in "the concept-of-Santa-Claus exists, therefore Santa Claus exists"), then us being able to ask whether X exists at all means the concept of X exists and thus that X does too. But that's a bad result- some things exist and some things do not, and any analysis that implies that everything of which we can name or conceptualize exists, regardless of whether it actually does exist or not, then all the worse for your analysis.

But, Santa's ontology exists in the fictional realm. Why do people conflate the two?

Now that I've had the time to consider your question properly, I'd say it's a profound question. Parmenides, I was told, claimed that if one even talks about an x, that x hasta exist (it seems he had issues with nonbeing, an impossibility in his universe).

But, Santa's ontology exists in the fictional realm. Why do people conflate the two? — Shawn

Why do people conflate existing in a realm with existing in a realm-diagram or a realm-description?

What does "'exist' in a formal sense" even mean here? — busycuttingcrap

You wrote: "And colloquially, to say that something exists only as a concept in your mind is simply a different way of saying that something doesn't exist (consider: a conspiracy theory, an imaginary friend, etc)"

As colloquial is defined as informal speech, "exists in a formal sense" contrasts with "exists in a colloquial sense".

You say that in an informal colloquial sense, the sentence "Santa Claus does not exist" means that although Santa Claus exists as a concept in the mind, he doesn't exist in the world.

Contrasted against this, in a more formal academic sense, the sentence "Santa Claus does not exist" is misleading, in that although Santa Claus doesn't exist in the world, Santa Claus does exist as a concept in the mind.

However, I am not even sure that in informal colloquial speech people would say that fictional characters don't exist, otherwise people wouldn't make such significant emotional investment in fictional characters within books and films.

Why do people conflate existing in a realm with existing in a realm-diagram or a realm-description? — bongo fury

Yes. Why is that?

Yes. Why is that? — Shawn

Touche! :lol:

Do you think that the sense of Santa's existence belies itself in the cultural context of the sum total of his depictions and literature? Because, I think that as to answer this question by appealing to "meaning as use" is one of the few alternatives for addressing the instantiation of Santa's existence. Other than that one can entertain the notion that the realm-description of Santa guarantees his fictional existence. Does that make some sense?

I wasn't asking for an explanation of the difference between technical and colloquial usage in general, I was asking what exactly you think is THE formal definition of "exists" in philosophy. A rhetorical question, since there isn't one (existence in philosophy having been understood as everything from "being perceived" to "being the value of a bound variable", and plenty more in between)

And in any case, as I previously pointed out, the issue here isn't equivocation between technical and colloquial senses, the problem is conflating Santa Claus with the "concept" of Santa Claus. At most we can say that the concept of Santa Claus exists (if you don't mind the untenable language about concepts existing "in" minds), not that Santa Claus exists (because he doesn't- he is fictional). Supposing that "Santa Claus doesn't exist" is false because the concept of Santa Claus exists is about as naked a non-sequitur as one can imagine.

At most we can say that the concept of Santa Claus exists (if you don't mind the untenable language about concepts existing "in" minds), not that Santa Claus exists (because he doesn't- he is fictional). — busycuttingcrap

Why would that be anything untenable if that is what we mean when we say "Santa Claus exists". Furthermore, Santa routinely escapes his description realm when people (mostly children) start believing that he lives at the North Pole.

Hence, "Santa Claus exists" and "Santa Claus exists at the North Pole" are distinct, wouldn't you say?

I was asking what exactly you think is THE formal definition of "exists" in philosophy — busycuttingcrap

As the SEP article on Existence notes that the question of existence raises deep and important problems in metaphysics, philosophy of language, and philosophical logic, it's highly unlikely that I could come up with one.

Right; that was precisely my point- there is no such thing as THE "formal" or technical definition of existence in philosophy (so this isn't a failure on your part- no one has been able to establish an uncontroversial technical usage for "exists" in philosophy, including the greatest minds in the history of philosophy, let alone philosophy grunts like you or me).

Is that what we mean when we say Santa Claus exists? That the concept of Santa Claus exists? If that is what we mean, why don't we just say that instead?

And "Santa Claus exists" and "Santa Claus exists at the North Pole" are distinct, but not in any way that changes things wrt his alleged existence (not so far as I can tell, at any rate). Both express a false proposition, because Santa Claus is fictional, and doesn't exist at the North Pole or anywhere else. All that exists are stories, words, beliefs, language- the "concept" of Santa Claus, not Santa Claus.

Is that what we mean when we say Santa Claus exists? That the concept of Santa Claus exists? If that is what we mean, why don't we just say that instead? — busycuttingcrap

Do you agree that Santa Claus exists as a concept?

As I've said a number of times, I think talking about the existence of concepts in minds is an untenable reification. So I'm humoring other commenters with such language. The better way to put it is that what exists are various oral/literary/etc traditions- stories, songs, and so forth.

But the point holds regardless of terminology; Santa Claus doesn't exist, Santa Claus is fictional. What does exist are stories, songs, language- or, the concept of Santa Claus... not Santa Claus.

heard that Santa Claus was at a Xmas speed dating event, he pulled a cracker.

happy new year everyone! :smile:

Let Santa Claus speak for himself.

Santa, do you exist? — Agent Smith

You tell me Smith, do I exist? — Santa Claus

If I knew I wouldn't ask. — Agent Smith

Don't you like me Smith? — Santa Claus

When I realized Santa Claus was not real, I was angry with my mother for lying to me. She explained Santa Claus is real in spirit. Santa Claus is the happiness and the spirit of giving.
We can give any time of the year but the spirit of Christmas is something we share together and that makes it a bigger deal than just buying someone a gift. It is special foods, traditions and songs. As one song says, it is a wonderful time of the year, and participating in Christmas is not being alone but a part of something much bigger than ourselves.

I think we have a hard time with spirits. I believe they are real, such as morale, that high-spirited feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. We experience spirits and that makes them real, but they are not materialistic and most of us are limited to materialistic thinking.

I've rediscovered an old philosophical technique, it's called List Method. It's illustrated below:

1. Definitely exists: The Eiffel tower, The Uluru rock (Down Under), Mammoth caves (USA), Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin

2. May/may not exist: Spirits, leprechauns, Santa Claus.

3. Definitely does not exist: A married bachelor, and other self-contradictory objects.

✍( ͡¬ ᴗ ͡¬)

So we can't say/believe that something doesn't exist unless its existence is literally a logical impossibility?

Are we sure that's a reasonable standard? :chin:

I just invented a fictional character named Billy-Bob Butterybuns. His existence is not logically impossible, like a married bachelor or round square, it does not entail any contradiction... but I did just invent him.

So, does Billy-Bob Butterybuns exist? Can we justifiably say that Billy-Bob Butterybuns doesn't exist, or no? (and if not, why not?)